Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235

Page Creation

Greetings guys!

I am a manager for Jalen Mcmillan & I have tried several different times to create his page, however they always seem to get deleted. Any help in regards to this would be fantastic!

If you prefer to contact me via private messages feel free to do so.

Thank you guys for being a wonderful help. DerekHoytink (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how i write article in wikipedia writer slubna khan (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

how i write article in wikipedia,how i upload pic in article and how i publish that article? writer slubna khan (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Coordinates missing" situation

This article is catted as needing coordinates. It is about an outbreak of wildfires across two states. It refers to locations using city and county names which are all linked. Looking for advice as to how to approach.

Do nothing except remove the {{coord missing}}, since each of the linked cities and counties has its own coordinates
Add title coordinates that approximate the center of ALL the fires with a low precision per WP:OPCOORD
Add coordinates to this article for each of the named cities and counties (specifically where and in what form?)
Research to try to establish more specific burn areas for each fire, estimate the center of each burn area, and add the resulting coordinates (ugh)
Something else

Thanks! Btw, I see the problem with refs and will address that too. Mandruss (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I'd recommend asking your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where people who are interested in coordinates hang out. I'm not sure of the typical approach for articles where more than one location is covered, but they probably know and can help out! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: (e/c) Hey Mandruss. It's very unclear to me that adding coordinates would be a benefit to this article at all. Does every article that with a location prominently featured (but which is not an article on a location topic need coordinates? What about every article that mentions multiple locations? Seems to me doing so would leave an article cluttered and that such coordinates inserted in the middle of running text, as would seem to be called for here, would break the flow. As you've indicated, there is no easy way to pinpoint the exact locations and since all of the locations nearby are linked and have their own coordinates, I view it as, at the least, a very low priority task. Using the time you (or anyone) might have spent to instead verify the text with reliable sources is in my estimation a massively better use of that finite resource. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Yeah, I do have a tendency to be overly literal at times, and the cat name is Oklahoma articles missing geocoordinate data, not Oklahoma articles possibly needing geocoordinate data. And I'm not comfortable trusting my own judgment in such gray areas yet. I've asked the question at the aforementioned project. Thanks to both of you for the feedback. Mandruss (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing policy

I am editing the entry "Interferon", a field I have worked in for a long time and am intimately familiar with. In the current entry's section on the history of interferon, someone has included numerous references to his own work claiming priority, when there were other people (not me!) who accomplished those tasks and should be given credit for it. Is it ok to delete the incorrect claims and the accompanying references and replace them with correct ones?

Kalos0150.74.41.74 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend that you describe your concerns and proposed changes in detail at Talk: Interferon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kalos01. Have you registered on Wikipedia with that name? If not, there are reasons why you should, but it is not necessary.

I was going to give the same advice as Cullen, but I can add some details. While I am sure you are telling the truth, we have no way of knowing you actually are an expert on the subject of interferon. But even if you are an expert, you do not have any special privileges for editing. The good news is that you have a better understanding of the independent reliable sources that prove your statements that are necessary to make changes such as you wish to make. You have to show that your sources are more reliable than the sources you claim are incorrect. If the incorrect claims are unsourced, you can probably delete them and replace them with the correct sourced information, provided you leave a clear edit summary. If you are not registered and the edit is credited to 50.74.41.74, some editors will treat the edit as suspicious.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do my pages keep getting deleted?

My page is for a website. It has been deleted and nobody will respond on my talk page!Oberynsparamour (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Maybe your page was promotional. Were you advertising anything?☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was basically just a page so that the website/person could be found easily.Oberynsparamour (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the website advertise anything? Wikipedia has a strict policy on advertising. Wikipedia doesn't want to be associated with ads in any way.☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the article is ANGRYGOTFAN.com. It has been tagged as not demonstrating the importance of the subject, which seems correct to me. Has this website won any awards? Has there been any major controversy over it? Have major independent sources discussed or reviewed it? --Jakob (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we carry this discussion over to my talk page, Oberynsparamour ? Just drop me a message there. And we can pick up where we left off. ☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to posting to wiki and I'm not sure how to message you on your talk page??Oberynsparamour (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the purple 'talk' link next to my username, and you will go to my talk page. Then click the button that says, "New Section" and you should be able to leave me a message.☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oberynsparamour, not every web site (or every person or every organization) will have an article in an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is no different. Wikipedia uses the term "notable" to describe whether a topic can have its own article. There are specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability, but the general thrust is that a topic must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and independent of one another. As it currently stands, the article ANGRYGOTFAN.com does not satisfy this at all. It also has other issues about not being written from a Neutral Point of View, but that is not why it has been proposed for deletion. I suggest you read WP:A7, as spelled out in the notice placed at the top of your article, because your comments on the Talk page have all completely missed the point - it is not a matter of whether you think it is important, it is a matter of being able to show evidence that multiple independent sources have documented that in some detail. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page link

Hey Teahouse, So I made my signature with a part that's supposed to link to my talkpage. Only thing is, it wont link to it. Can you help me out? Thanks,☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SkaterLife: Are you referring to your current signature? It looks fine to me - the 'talk' link goes straight to your talk page. If you saw your signature on your own talk page, the reason the link doesn't work there is because links from a page back to itself do not work. If you look at your signature here, it should be fine :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. HA-HA. Human error. That seems to explain it. Thanks!☯SkaterLife☯ talk 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to lock down Gail Dines' page

Hi there,

I'm working with [[[Gail Dines|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines]]], whose Wikipedia page seems to have become a sort of fighting ground for folks pro- and anti-porn. Gail is an anti-porn activist, so her article is bound to contain her ideas, which may inflame some people. She completely understands that Wikipedia needs to be factual and based on sources, but is upset at what has happened to her page, which affects her safety and career. Our end goal is the same as Wikipedia's: to represent her opinions and criticism neutrally, and clean up her page from the current alert messages that show, hopefully resolving issues with trolling as well.

I've had a look at the "Talk" page and I'm unclear what I'm supposed to add to help resolve these disputes. I've also submitted to the Help page and help email, and got replies from neither. I tried to do the IRC chat but can't seem to type in it to chat.

Please instruct me, and if you can actively help in any way, that would be greatly appreciated. This is quite a headache for non-Wikipedia folk. Thank you so much for your help!

Julia Juliabarry (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the tea-house.
Although Wikipedia articles which have been subject to repeated vandalism can be semi-protected, I don't see any indication whatsoever of Gail Dines article being a "fighting ground". There seems to have been only one piece of vandalism this year (6 April), whilst no-one has edited the talk page this year at all. There is, therefore, no chance of the page being semi-protected, as there is, currently, no need.
As you admit you are working with Dines, you should read, and follow, our guidance on confluict of interest and avoid editing her page, except in the very limited circumstances explained in that guideline. - Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Juliabarry:, Wikipedia editors sometimes (often?) disagree, and while I agree with Arjayay that there isn't enough vandalism or edit-warring on the article about Dines to justify any sort of technical protection, I do agree with you that the article's neutrality is disputed (and has been since 2011!), which certainly makes it a battleground of sorts. The subject matter is clearly controversial. There have been a number of attempts to improve this, including by User:TheRedPenOfDoom just over a month ago and User:The Vintage Feminist just over a day ago, but it's still far from perfect. I've just trimmed some problematic material myself, in these edits.

You might like to raise the issue at WP:BLPN, where a more nuanced consideration of the problem might be possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that seemed (and still seems) to be missing from the article is any positive reception. @Juliabarry:, as someone who is familiar with her work, you could help by pointing to reliably published sources that have positive things to say about her analysis/positions etc, and places where her activism has had real world impact - laws passed, traffickers closed down etc. Some of us are kind of lazy and / or dont have easy access to / knowledge of the sources that say good things about her work but would be happy to incorporate materials if someone brought links/references to the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki

Hi I was messaged about the page I just uploaded and it has been deleted, however having read all the info available I am still unsure and having spoken to many entirely unhelpful people I am now coming to you. Can someone please help me to set this up. The page is to be created as a way to help increase SEO and not to attempt to market the brand I used examples of other companies pages to help me write it and I do not belive it is written wrongly I do hope that this time I am not just sent 10 links and am given some useful help Thanks Leah Leah Hiles (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leah, "to help increase SEO" is promotion as far as Wikipedia is concerned and indeed the very term "search engine optimisation" is just a marketing euphemism. Sorry to be harsh, but it's not Wikipedia's job to increase your search rankings. If you are connected with the company or business, please also read WP:COI for advice on editing/creating articles when you have a conflict of interest.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Leah. I'm sorry but the article transgressed many independent basis for content we cannot accept. The page was a copyright violation, since you copied and pasted the company's linkin profile. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here so please be aware you cannot do this. That copied and pasted content was inappropriately promotional and so could not be used here even if you went through the process of irrevocably releasing the content under a free copyright license we woulf accept – that is, it could and would likely have been deleted on the basis of promotion if it was not deleted on another ground. Your reasons for posting it were also improperly promotional, and from a person (you) with a conflict of interest in doing so. Please note that saying posting the article was "not to attempt to market the brand", and in the same breath saying its purpose was to "help increase SEO" is a profound contradiction; posting a page to increase search engine optimization is just about the definition of inappropriate marketing intent in attempting to create an article. The article was actually deleted under section a7 of the criteria for speedy deletion and I agree with that basis as well. Finally, please note that since good sourcing is the key to the Wikipedia kingdom, you should be aware that the sourcing you used to attempt to provide verification of the content and show notability was not the type we seek. We need reliable independent, secondary sources, which cannot be met by circular citations to other Wikipedia articles or the company's own writing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All outbound Wikipedia links are made into "nofollow" links by the website's software, meaning that they should have no impact on search engine ranking of pages anyway. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to clear sandbox when published wiki page us a redirect from it

I wrote the page "Ripley Ville" in my sandbox and submitted it for assessment. The assessors graded it and "published" it using a redirect from the sandbox. I need to clear the sandbox for further work. How can I do this without deleting the "published" page.PeterEltham (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your first (?) article. There published article won't be affected when you edit your sandbox, but current your sandbox is redirecting to the article. Click the link here[1] to go directly to your sandbox and hit "edit." You should see only a short REDIRECT template. Delete it and then you're free to start over in your sandbox. Let us know if you have any problems. Keihatsu ^talk 11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeterEltham. I was looking at your sandbox, and I noticed that you have copied a whole article into it and are making changes. I presume that you plan to copy it back after you have finished modifying it. This can cause problems, because in the meantime other editors may make other changes to the main article, and when you do your copy-back you will erase them. It's a limitation of the editing process. It's great to use your sandbox to work on the wording of a particular sentence, or the formatting of a reference you plan to add, but then the result should be added right into the main article rather than into a copy. The only time a whole article should be in your sandbox is if you are creating a new one from scratch, and even then it is better to create a user subpage, such as "User:PeterEltham/My article title", and develop the article there. I apologize if I have misunderstood what's happening there. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why primary sources are bad?

Why primary sources are bad,even when they meet WP:RS? Ssaz 12 (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse Ssaz. Primary sources aren't necessarily bad, and they can be used in Wikipedia. The challenge is that it can be difficult to use them correctly. The relevant policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Interpretations or synthesis of source material need to be cited to secondary sources. I hope that answers your question. Keihatsu ^talk 03:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ssaz 12. Although primary sources are not."bad", high quality secondary sources are preferred. The authors of such sources, and their professional editors and fact checkers, have the expertise to determine that the raw facts are important, significant, unique and worthy of in-depth discussion. Primary sources tell us none of that, and we can't make such evaluations on our own as Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading newer versions of a file

I would like to upload a copy of a file on wikipedia I edited using GIMP. When I go to the original file I can't change anything. Here are the pictures.

File:6308-AnaheimDisneyLand-NW to SE View2.jpg

Tom the Bergeron (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom and welcome (back?) to The Teahouse. Something is causing these photos not to display in the correct section, and I'm not sure how to fix it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the alignment is goofing up due to conflicting with the table of contents to the right. I removed the multi-image template, should look better now. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom the Bergeron: To answer your question, the original file is hosted at the Wikimedia Commons here, which is why you can't overwrite the image here on Wikipedia. The Commons and Wikipedia are two separate sites. Wikipedia is able to use images from the Commons, but to make changes to a file on the Commons, you have to edit it from the Commons.

However, I don't think overwriting the file is necessary in this case. Per the Common's policy on overwriting files, images should generally only be overwritten for minor and uncontroversial corrections. Color corrections can be considered minor, though in this case, I'd consider your color adjustments to be pretty significant. Note that your image currently lacks proper licensing information, which needs to be added per the instructions on the file's description. Let us know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title of a page

We have changed the name of our association and need to change the title of the page. How do I do this? Do I need to create a new page and link from the old page to the new page? SITE-Incentive Travel (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, SITE-Incentive Travel. It appears likely that your username violates our username policy so I recommend that you change it promptly. Please also familiarize yourself with our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. The move procedure is the method to give an article a new name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you won't need to move the page. It has been nominated for deletion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has also been tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation from http://www.siteglobal.com/p/cm/ld/fid=144 - David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help?! I need more citations for my article on Murv Jacob...

Can anyone help me? Ive been trying to get this done for over a month now... I am writing a article on Murv Jacob and they keep rejecting it :( Can anyone help me beef it up so it will be accepted???? Thanks, Holly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hollyelizabethstar/sandbox Hollyelizabethstar (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hollyelizabethstar! I found plenty of book reviews and news reports by searching on the on the internet. I have added several to your article. You can find more by searching for his name and adding words such as "book review" or "illustrator" or by the name of some of the books. If there are authors that he works with regularly and whose books he illustrates, it might be suitable to mention them, and as well as when and by whom the books were published. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Font

Alright Teahouse, My signature looks like this now--☯SkaterLife☯ . But I want to make it have Comic sans font. How can I do that? Thanks, ☯SkaterLife☯ 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SkaterLife: well if w.Carter's is [[User:W.carter|w.carter]][[User talk:W.carter|'''-Talk''']] , I would presume changing font-family to Comic sans would do it. [[User:SkaterLife|☯SkaterLife☯]] (comes out as ☯SkaterLife☯). Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper font name for Comic Sans is "Comic sans MS", so the code will actually be [[User:SkaterLife|☯SkaterLife☯]]. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

☯SkaterLife☯ Ah yes, seems different. Are Comic Sans and Sans MS two different fonts? Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matty.007: 'Comic Sans MS' is just the full technicaly name of Comic Sans :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they different here? Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matty.007: Hmm...not sure what you're asking exactly. Different from where? Comic Sans MS is the universal name that you'll see in HTML, Microsoft Word, etc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuperHamster: well, Comicsans (☯SkaterLife☯</nowiki> (comes out as ☯SkaterLife☯) gets a different result to Comic Sans MS (☯SkaterLife☯). Thanks, Mat ty.007 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matty.007: Ah, gotcha. 'Comicsans' isn't recognized as a font, so your browser will render it as the default browser/site font, which in my case happens to be Times New Roman. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the help. Mat ty.007 17:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is dim I have changed it to bold, if you like you can add it to your signature

☯SkaterLife☯ Regards Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe put a "Talk"-part in it somewhere? ;) w.carter-Talk 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SkaterLife: you should also consider the final paragraph of Comic Sans#Opposition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: when designing a signature, should one really just focus on the "name" of a font? In this case the characters in the signature are such that the 'offending' font is hardly noticeable. Should one not consider the entire appearance of the signature? I can think of a number of signatures that might appear more "frivolous" in choice of boldness, extra characters or multicolor than SkaterLife's rather straight forward signature. w.carter-Talk 21:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a readily recognisable font. I hadn't really been aware of its significance in terms of mockery/dismissal until some people more font-aware than I pointed it out to me. Whether SkaterLife cares what such people think is up to him. (Wikipedia also suggests that people also take users of the font less seriously without knowing what the name of the font is, which is a separate consideration.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such hang-ups just about a font? The world just keeps getting weirder... w.carter-Talk 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provelt

Hello,
Is there a way to get rid of the "(edited with ProveIt)" tag next to my edit summaries? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. Removing it, it is only automatically re-added, it's a bit of a pest and not really needed, but again, I don't know a way to stop it. Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I get rid of it is to preview my edits first then remove it. However, most of the time I forget to do that. Thanks anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't be more help, hope you have better luck at the Village Pump. Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username Font

Hey Teahouse, It's me again. I wanted to know. How can I make my username a different kind of font like other users have here? Thanks, SkaterLife (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SkaterLife. Check out the code of some of the usernames you like. Copy it to your sandbox and put your own name and so on in it instead. In the code there are places where you state what font you want or if you want it in bold or with some special characters. Once you play around with it you will understand how it works. When you have the signature you want, you copy the code to your Preferences (see top of your pages) and put the code in the box marked Signature + check the box underneath. Your new signature will then appear on that page. Good luck! w.carter-Talk 15:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the code?SkaterLife (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might I quickly suggest Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial for a start? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well my "code" is [[User:W.carter|w.carter]][[User talk:W.carter|'''-Talk''']] You can see it when you edit here. You can take Technical 13s advice, or if you want some more help we can take this discussion to my talk page. Just post there and I will help you. w.carter-Talk 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do this correctly? SkaterLife

[[User:UserBob|UserBob]] [[User talk:UserBob|talk]] (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's something in the middle of your signature which isn't displaying correctly. Especially if you are not also UserBob.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another user cut some changes I made to an article that I feel really added to it. What can I do about it?

Another user cut the changes I made to an article that I feel really added to the article. What can I do about it?50.106.227.238 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, person with an IP address starting with 50 and welcome to The Teahouse. This is your only edit, so were signed in when you edited an article, and if so, what was your name? Or have you ever edited with another IP address? If you could tell us what article you edited, that would help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless of what article you edited, the standard advice is to discuss. Click on "View history" or "History" at the top of the page to see who reverted you, click on "talk" beside that person's name, and ask nicely why the change was made. Each article has its own talk page as well where you can discuss changes. If you were editing from an IP, your edits would naturally be viewed with suspicion, so it is important to provide reliable sources for whatever you add.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP vs what? I have an account--Lanternrouge7. I don't understand...

It's the Buick Skylark article. I added three pictures of a special model from'72. I noticed that the other person also removed all mention of the model from the article--information that had been in there for years.

Thanks chimp!50.106.227.238 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go take a look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question "IP vs what?" everyone who is not signed in has an IP address. It may be the same all the time on a given computer, or the Internet service provider might give you a dynamic IP. You seem to have a static IP because both times you posted here with the same IP.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't understand what happened. I saw the three photos you added, and yet a few minutes later when I double-checked to make sure they were still in the article, the photos didn't even exist.~~ Never mind, I found them. It looks like you should discuss this with Wikiuser100. I disagree about taking the information out of the article, though it was unsourced and didn't demonstrate why it was important. It looks like Mr.choppers also took something out of the article. It may be there were just too many photos.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

how do you get to somebody's talk page?Sdkevon (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click on their name, and choose the Talk tab at the top of their userpage. Alternatively, type: User talk:name of user into the Search bar. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a company called "Wheel Tugs?"98.239.250.230 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Was on Wikipedia and Andrew Tobias autobiographical information which led to his website. He apparently is in to a company called, "Wheel Tugs" and I was wondering if there was some more information that may be gleaned in wikipedia about the company. 98.239.250.230 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've got an article on WheelTug (and also an article on Tugboats, some of which have historically been driven by paddle-wheels) - any use? Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why there are edit conflicts?

Think:

Bob starts editing.
Alice starts editing.
Bob finishes editing.
Alice finishes editing.

I think:Instead of an edit conflict,the Bob's revision should be replaced with Alice's revision,without a warning. Why there are edit conflicts?

Ssaz 12 (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssaz 12: Welcome to the Teahouse. Consider this: say Bob added 10 paragraphs of content to an article and Alice just fixed a spelling error. --Jakob (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ssaz 12: Edit conflict occurs when 2 (or more) editors click "edit this page" and subsequently each click "save page". It alerts editor2 that editor1 clicked save while editor2 was still in edit mode... meaning that editor2 would no longer be editing the most current version of the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre missing reflist

Hi. While patrolling NewPages just now, I came upon an article that appeared to have a list numbered list of references, exactly like a reflist, but there wasn't a reflist. I added a reflist, but the old revision is here. This isn't terribly important; I'm just curious if someone can explain what was going on. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new feature. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing reference markup will no longer show an error. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial use images on Wikipedia

Is it OK to use an image provided for "editorial use" in a Wikipedia article? For example, the image [[2]] is protected by copyright and "for editorial use only", and would be great for illustrating the Kobo Aura. Is there a section in the non-free media rationale that would allow this? Cheeseisdisgusting (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheeseisdisgusting: Welcome to the Teahouse! I get an "access denied" error when I try to view your linked image, but I'll try to answer anyway. For an image to be considered free by Wikipedia's standards, it needs to be licensed in a way that allows the image to be used for any purpose, in any medium, including commercially. As a result, "editorial use" isn't sufficient enough for the image to be considered free. Non-free images can only be used when "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The Kobo Aura, being a physical tablet, can certainly be portrayed through a freely-licensed image (and it already is), so a non-free image would not meet our non-free content criteria and wouldn't be acceptable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reed Farrel Coleman

Hi, Teahouse. I was asked to help another person create a Reed Farrel Coleman page, and at this point I've done most of it except write the bio. The mistake I made with my first page, before I knew about the help to be had here, was submit and continue to add, add, add -- thinking I was improving the page. It turned out I was creating a monster with too many wikilinks, inline external links, etc. Many of the references I was provided to place with the bio text were not acceptable to use, so I found and used others. The page is submitted and I think has reasonable content, appropriate references, and decent wikilinks. Could someone(s) please take a look and comment on what could use improvement for acceptance? Many thanks, Old Beeg _··warble·· 18:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldbeeg and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at box at the bottom of the draft you will find several tips under "How to improve your article". You could start with writing some more about Mr. Coleman, something that others have written or said about him, something readers would like to know, not just list of his works. I did a quick Google search, and there are literary thousands of entries about him, some from very respectable newspapers and such. Use these, and you will be well on your way to a nice article. Just be sure to reference everything you find. Best, - w.carter-Talk 19:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, w.carter. I went fifteen pages into the Google results and didn't find any newspaper stories beside those already referenced. There were five possible sources for information, two of which may give something new to include. Three usable reviews showed that may make good quotes if a Reviews/reception section is added to the page. Unfortunately, most of the listings were sources I have previously been advised not to use: publishers, blogs, FB, author web site, etc. Most of the bookstore, library, etc. sites had copied bio information from the author's web site. There may be thousands of hits, but from this sample, I'm guessing most are not showing anything original. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Oldbeeg. I'm sorry to hear that the search did not produce as much as we hoped. That happens sometimes. But use however small pieces you found, try google some of his books or his pen name (if he has one) or people that he has collaborated with, information sometimes turns up without the complete name of an author but in connection to his/hers works, so that's another angle. And dare I suggest something as old fashioned as printed publications? A visit to a library? Anything is possible. Good hunting, w.carter-Talk 13:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, w.carter. My county library is small and without good resources for what I'm looking for. We only have one of his books. I have found one book that I purchased online that has a few tidbits, and have used one book from my own library by Roger Sobin. Mr. Coleman appears to be a private sort. I'm hoping that what is on the page will be good enough to warrant acceptance. Many thanks, Old Beeg _··warble·· 18:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldbeeg:Now look here Draft talk:Reed Farrel Coleman. :) w.carter-Talk 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing Wikipedia

Hi I emailed Wikipedia to confirm that I got permission of a image from the creator. They have not replied for over a week. How long does it usually take? I emailed normal wiki and common. Is there a quicker way to do it?

Dovikap (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dovikap: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you already uploaded the image to Wikipedia or the Commons? Looking at your upload history, I notice you uploaded File:Shado.jpg, which has since been appropriately tagged as having received proper permission. If this is the image you are talking about, everything looks good to go, even if you didn't receive a reply via email. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No shado.jpg is not the image. I haven't uploaded it yet. Dovikap (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dovikap: Gotcha - in that case, I would follow these instructions, which involve uploading the image first, tagging it, and then sending the email to the Commons OTRS volunteers to approve the granted permission. I'm not exactly sure what the OTRS volunteer would do if you haven't uploaded the image yet, so I would go through the process again. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovikap (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an OTRS volunteer. The permissions queue currently has 539 e-mails in it so it may take a while for one of the other volunteers to get to it.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with references

Dear Wiki community. I'm new to this game, so forgive my ignorance. I'm having trouble with some of the references that I have included in a new article on Blacksands Pacific. For some reason, some of the references are not working properly and I can't work out why. Can anybody help? This is only the 2nd article I've written, so I'm keen to learn. Thank you. Rogerbreak (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - just worked it out. I was missing a few brackets. Thanks. Rogerbreak (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rogerbreak: - That's a good question about those pesky brackets so I'm including this link for other new editors who might have the same problem: references. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are duplicate submissions handled?

I submitted my first page. I was not sure the submission process had been correct. I then created the page a second time and submitted it again. Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dennis_william_nyback/Oregon_cartoon_institute

It appears the second submission was rejected because of the first one. That is fine with me. The first one was better.

Is my first submission still under consideration and how long will that consideration take? Dennis william nyback (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis william nyback: Your draft is still waiting for review. It's at Draft:Oregon cartoon institute. I'd suggest breaking it into sections, which makes it more readable. Also, about a third of your references are to YouTube, IMDB, and Tumblr, which are usually frowned upon as sources. The draft will likely be declined for this reason alone unless you replace them with better ones, but it won't be deleted unless you abandon it or request deletion. The main problem with your sources is that anyone can fake a YouTube video, blog, or IMDB entry. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to fake a newspaper article, book, or government document, so these and other such sources are OK. --Jakob (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jakob. Dennis william nyback (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be pedantic, the draft is not at Draft:Oregon cartoon institute, but at Draft:Oregon Cartoon Institute. The first link is a redlink because Wikipedia page titles are case sensitive. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way of Deleting unwanted User Pages.

I often notice user who adds too much personal information which is not worthy or user names which seems to be more of an advertisement [ eg: xyz associates ] . Should i notify them beforehand or add the quick deletion template directly ? Please share links on proper ways to notify or handle these cuz, I might have missed it :) Sahil (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SahilSahadevan: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you see a userpage with personal information, there's little you can do, unless it's about a minor. Then you should email the oversight team as soon as possible so that it can be removed from the public archives. Promotional userpages can be tagged as {{db-u5}} (okay) or {{db-g11}} (better) and promotional usernames can be reported here. If you install the Twinkle tool in your preferences (look in the gadgets section), the latter two tasks are easier to do. --Jakob (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do if someone deletes my edits?

Someone has deleted my edits on the pretext that the information is not attributed. This information is based on local history - some of it derived from personal knowledge of people still living. This is difficult to cite. I suspect the deletions are against the public interest and are biased. GoodnessandTruth (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have run up against a normal WIkipedia issue, but it's a good thing to ask us about. Reading WP:TRUTH will show you how we, as an encyclopaedia, differ from a reporter of the truth. We report on other people's reports of things, things that may not even be true. Usually a wikipedia editor will be able to remove their own biases when making edits, though not always. We do require attribution, and not just personal recollection. We can't cite Mrs Trellis of 27 The High Street, Fooville, because we have no published source. If the Fooville gazette publishes Mtrrs Trellis's recollections then we have some sort of a source. If they comment upon Mrs Trellis's recollections then we have a better source. We are not a local history archive, and personal recollections should be offered to your local history society without fail. We have a different purpose, unfair as it may seem to you at first.

If you have attribution for the edits you can and should use the article's talk page to discuss the material and ther attribution and seek to form a consensus for the inclusion of the material. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) @GoodnessandTruth and FreeRangeFrog: Hi GoodnessandTruth. The only thing you can properly do is add back the material citing to published reliable sources that verify it, using inline citations. Please see the section of the verifiability policy known as WP:BURDEN, which places the obligation to verify unsourced material, after removal, on anyone seeking to return it. Since you are stating that most of this material is actually unpublished, you cannot properly return it at all. I disagree with you that this is either against the public interest or is biased. It is what is necessary to maintain Wikipedia as a encyclopedia, and not some other type of reference work. It may very well be that this material should be posted elsewhere, but not here. An encyclopedia is by its nature a tertiary source, that details what is already known through previous publication in the wider world. It is not for the announcing new things or original publication. Wikipedia is constrained from doing so by the very fabric of what it is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out why my article was not accepted?

There was no reason given with the rejection Jackdesert (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jackdesert. Did you take a look at your own draft article? Because I just did and found this message from reviewer MatthewVanitas, who made the following comments, which you should study and address:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

"What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Links to the relevant policies and guidelines have been provided by the reviewer at the beginning of your draft. If you have any questions after reading that, please feel free to ask them here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOBUT + Assist

I had created apage by the name Ravensoul (a book review) but due to lack of time couldn't feed in the whole date & it was removed. I also need some voluteers for speedy completion. ( the book is by James Barclay) Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxiblurr (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxiblurr: What was the name of that article? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oxiblurr. When we look at your contribution history, all we see is this Teahouse question. That makes it very difficult to find what you were working on. Unless you can provide more details, only an administrator could learn more about this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was Ravensoul, which was speedily deleted twice, on successive days, as (basically) not providing enough information to identify the article's topic. Oxiblurr, I'll just say that I think you are laboring under a misapprehension: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for book reviews. If you think the book merits an encyclopedia article rather than a review, the instructions at WP:Your first article should be of help. Deor (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citiations for headers

why do many articles, including corporate ones, do not have citations for the last paragraph before the table of contents, are they just assumed?

for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding Dark Liberty (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal article, the WP:LEAD would not have references, because the lead would a summary of content found elsewhere in the article which would be cited. (one caveat is that controversial claims and quotations need to be cited at any appearance) That being said, ideal articles that follow this to a T are relatively uncommon. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from a television programme?

Hi

Is it ok to add to a person's page a quote they said on a television programme, so long as you use their actual words? Enjoylife123 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide us with a few more details? I assume this is a real person, and that the statement was made during a news program of some sort. If that's the case, you can add it just as you would a quote cited in a print media article. Also keep in mind that any quotes need a citation so that other editors can independently verify their accuracy. Hope this helps! Keihatsu ^talk 19:15, reliable,2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another issue to consider, Enjoylife123, is that a single quote taken out of context is not necessarily worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. People say many things, so why is this particular thing important? It would be best to have a reliable independent secondary source that discusses the significance of the statement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quotes can, however, be added to our Wikiquote project. --Jakob (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info so far guys.. to add a little more... in the UK we have had issues regarding sexist comments made by people in the media recently. It has been said that people in the media on national television shouldn't make sexist comments and cause offense to a group of people and, if they do, they should be held accountable for what they say. One such comment occurred during a news programme where a newscaster made a sexist comment about boys in schools and, as with stories that have been leaked recently, such as the Richard Scudamore debate, I felt it was worthy to add the comment to show this person's views, so long as what is said is exactly what the person said and nothing is added to that person's comment...only the actual quote. What do you think? Is that perfectly ok?

Using quotes out of context is a problem - thus we rely on whether a reliable secondary source refers to the quotes. Collect (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, rather importantly,

Wikipedia is not for "holding people accountable"
Wikipedia is not for "redressing the balance" (a phrasing you used earlier)
Wikipedia is not for promoting or defending a particular point of view
Biographies of living persons are subject to policy WP:BLP, in particular any material critical of a living person needs to be given due weight

So for example Wikipedia's article on Jeremy Clarkson, presenter of Top Gear, mentions his mis-use of a certain word, but only in passing (briefly!) in the wider context of him being an extremely successful and popular (if sometimes controversial) television presenter. And it only mentions it because multiple independent reliable sources commented on what his employer said about what any future such mistakes might mean for his career.

Likewise that guy who allegedly bit some people during football matches probably has some mention of that on the Wikipedia article about him (because of its significance in his career)... but if some guy on TV tomorrow said "I think biting people is OK" then we would not add that to a Wikipedia article about the guy, because it's just a dumb comment that is of no great significance.

Above all, beware hearing (or seeing or reading) something and deciding "this is relevant because it seems so to me". Such additions will be removed.

I'm quite interested in what the comment was, though :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reason for article decline

Hello, I would like to know the reason my article was declined, so I know where to focus in the help center. Would it be possible to get a more detailed explanation? I am writing the article about Speed Weed, who is a first hand source of mine and I have provided ample documentation of his writing and producing credits, so just wondering what the issue was. Thanks! Jen Ahlstrom 96.242.55.119 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jen and welcome to The Teahouse. This question is your only contribution to Wikipedia, so are you registered under a different name?

Since I don't know where the article is that you wrote, I will give some advice based on what I can see from the question. If you personally know Speed Weed, you have a conflict of interest, which can cause several problems. You are not prohibited from writing about this person, but it is difficult, even when you believe you can, to write using a neutral point of view. Also, you need independent reliable sources, not personal knowledge. We want people reading Wikipedia articles to be able to find where the information came from if they choose to do so, which helps determine the accuracy of the article. Also, we have know way of knowing whether you really do know Speed Weed. I believe you do, but we need proof of any claims made in the article. This is even more important for biographies of living persons.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured out how to find your draft. It is here. You are User:Jenahlstrom. I'll have a look at the draft and come back.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the first problem is that you don't want a first-level heading in the article. That means take out "Speed Weed (television writer, producer)" at the top of the page. This doesn't sound like a common name so "Speed Weed" will probalby be the article name, but it won't have that name until the article is moved. In most articles the title appears in the first sentence in bold (use three quotes on either side).

These are minor, but you don't document the sources for each of the facts given in the article. We see a list of sources at the bottom of the page, but if information in the article came from any of those, the source should appear between <ref> and </ref> after the information it verifies, preferably with formatting (see WP:CITE), and not just a URL. Three of the sources cannot be used as sources, though the imdb link can stay, under the heading "External links". The links to other Wikipedia articles might be appropriate under "See also", but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for another Wikipedia article. Ideally, you find the sources used for that other article and then use them in your article. I'm not sure about Tumblr. The Youtube interview might be all right as a source, but in general Youtube is not considered reliable. If the video is from a reliable source, it might work.

You should also ask MatthewVanitas, who declined your submission, for further advice. I think the article shows promise, though.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is nice to have inline citations, that is a quality issue for an article rather than a reason for the article to be declined. New editors do not have to learn that <ref></ref> stuff for articles to be accepted. References at the end of the article are enough if they meet requirements for notability, except in certain special cases. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. In fact, to be accepted, other information in the article needs to have been published somewhere, but the editor doesn't have to say where. That's another quality issue. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma may be right, but any help you can give the reviewers will benefit you. I left out one detail which isn't in your article since you didn't go through the actual "articles for creation". If you do use the ref tags, {{reflist}} must appear under the heading "References", probably before "External links".

Since you didn't submit the draft in the usual way, I had a hard time finding it. I realized it would be in Special:Contribs/MatthewVanitas, but I didn't know what I was getting myself into. Reviewing is a full-time job for him. Something went wrong and your submission contained no content, so as far as I know, no one has given your draft a formal review. I just did a quick one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way to get this article reviewed again is to move it to Draft:Speed Weed. But you can put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the existing page. I don't think you should have too much trouble getting it approved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, especially Vchimpanzee! I resubmitted the article according to the below, fingers crossed!

Cheers,

Jen

Jenahlstrom (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a New Administrator

There is an ongoing issue with the administrator who has been reviewing my article for creation, "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing." After this administrator initially declined the article on the basis of Notability, I pointed out two or three items already written in the article and referenced, by which it met the standard for notability. Only after I pointed out these elements to him multiple times did he finally agree that the article did indeed meet, as originally written, one of the guidelines. At his request, I then added a second reference to completely establish notability, and accordingly resubmitted the article. He again nevertheless declined the article. I pointed out how and where the reference met the criteria for notability; he responded that although he did not dispute the facts of the reference, the reference did not contain enough pages about the subject to establish notability. In other words, the facts were appropriate for notability, but the quantity of pages expressing those facts were not enough! (The history of this exchange can be viewed, I believe, via my page/his talk page. It's pretty self-explanatory.) The pattern seems to be that I make changes; he ignores them; I point out how the changes meet the criteria for notability; he assents and comes up with a new edit he requires; etc. We're now at a point where he seems to be introducing an entirely arbitrary criteria for notability--i.e. the number of pages of, rather than the facts expressed by, the reference are required, by him, to establish notability. Can I request a different administrator to review this article? i.e. one who will abide by the standard for Notability established by Wikipedia?

Thanks!

BlitzenrupffBlitzenrupff (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blitzenrupff. It seems that you are talking about Graeme Bartlett here, and when we discuss another editor on Wikipedia, it is considered polite to mention them by name. When you describe that person as an "administrator" and ask for a new "administrator", you seem to have a misunderstanding of roles. Yes, that editor is an administrator, but reviewing Articles for Creation is not an administrative function, and such reviews can be completed by any experienced editor, whether or not they are an administrator. In this case, this particular highly experienced editor has given you excellent advice for several weeks now, pointing out the importance of independent coverage, and that the coverage should be significant, rather than just a passing mention. Please be aware that the Articles for Creation process is an optional one that you have chosen. It gives you the opportunity to have an experienced editor (more than ten years of experience in this case) give you advice as your article develops. The alternative is to drop the article into main space, where new page patrollers, who tend to be far less patient, may tear it to shreds. So my friendly advice is to work with the reviewer. I think you have a good one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen. How do I drop the article directly into the main space? (It's been a very frustrating process with this editor (Graeme Bartlett); the frustration is pretty self-evident if one views the history of the exchange on his talk page--i.e. asking me to add elements that were already addressed in the article and references, etc.) We're now at the point where he is substituting arbitrary criteria for those stated by Wikipedia. It's hard to contribute more time to an article that can continue to be at the mercy of whatever arbitrary standard he next decides to introduce.) Thanks again.Blitzenrupff (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are showing frustration here, but I am seeing only cursory interaction between you and the reviewer, who is giving you excellent advice. He has explained to you that a passing mention in a source is not adequate, but that instead we require significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. My question to you is why are you rushing to create a Wikipedia article about a journal that has only been around since 2013? But the procedure to move the article to main space is described at here. Please be aware that I consider it highly likely that your article will be nominated for deletion if it is moved to main space. The choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen. (I hadn't noticed your response until now.) I might give that a try. I don't understand on what basis it would be nominated for deletion. It seems to satisfy clearly criteria 1 for Wikipedia's standards for Notability for Academic Journals. Unless the editor can explain to me--i.e. respond to my last set of questions--how exactly it does not, I'm not sure what else to do. Thanks again.Blitzenrupff (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because a Wikipedia article should be a summary of previously publishedinformation about a topic, I spent some time looking on the internet for information about "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing". I used Google, which found 29 items, most of which were announcements of one kind or another, such as calls for papers. It may be that Blitzenrupff has not added references to independent discussions of this journal in reliable publications because it is so new that none exist. If this is the case, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about this topic yet. On the other hand, perhaps authors in the field of critical thinking have written about this journal, but in off-line or subscription-only publications; in that case the relevant text will need to be found and cited to demonstrate that this is a well-known journal. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although only an essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability may help the editor understand the problem. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, The WAC Clearinghouse at Colorado State Univeristy and INWAC are the two sourced authorities. The Editor has even acknowledged that both are independent of one another and the journal. He has also acknowledged that each is a reliable source--the first being the primary academic exhange for the field, the second one being the leading professional organization in the field.Blitzenrupff (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne. That's right, the standard is "passing," not "brief," which means the number of pages is immaterial; by definition, "passing" concerns WHAT is expressed, not HOW MUCH of it is expressed. And as the editor acknowledged, through his explanation that he is not disputing the facts of the reference, mention of the journal is not cursory to another conversation (i.e. "passing), but central to the reference's discussion of which specific resources are 1)the important ones in the field and 2)are recommended for universities starting WAC programs. The reference is from the leading professional organization in the field (which selected for endorsement this journal and only two others out of a multitude of journals--a significant gesture to anyone familiar with the field). This second reference is precisely what was requested by the editor in order for the article to be published. It's hard to see how this reference confers less notability than the first reference, which he already approved (after I pointed out several times that the sourced reference was independent of the journal; frustrating because this is clearly evident to even the most casual reader of the article and the reference). As for your Google search (which I certainly appreciate), you'd find similar results for most academic journals. The notability of an academic journal doesn't usually accrue from others writing ABOUT the journal, but from who publishes IN the journal, who is on its editorial/advisory board, and from other authorities in the field--such as those issuing the kind of statements I cited. I think this is why, if one does a random search of academic journals in Wikipedia, one finds that a vast number of them are certainly notable (to those knowledgeable in their respective disciplines) yet have no references at all. What I've provided, in response to the editor's request, meets the notability guidelines for academic journals and far exceeds that for most of the academic journals whose entries I've surveyed on Wikipedia and initially used as a model for writing this article. My article would seem to provide a solid foundation for others to build on and update as the history of the journal unfolds. Thanks again for your thoughtful response, Anne--much appreciated.Blitzenrupff (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzenrupff Is this the current draft? Draft:Double_Helix:_A_Journal_of_Critical_Thinking_and_Writing If it is then I only see three references. All of them are web references and two seem to be from the site itself. If that draft that I linked to is the article in question then I don't think you have any justification to request a new review. I don't think any experienced Wikipedia editor would approve that draft it just doesn't pass the standards for references and notability, to be honest it's not even close. Here is a good summary of those as well as of what makes a good article wp:42 Also, I googled "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing" and the first 20 hits all seemed to be from the site itself or other blog like academic sites. I think there may be a real question whether the journal is wp:notable enough at this point to merit a wikipedia article at all. Please understand this has nothing to do with the quality of the work on the site. I'm sure it's outstanding and that that there are experts in the field who will say it's outstanding but unfortunately that doesn't matter for Wikipedia. What matters is are some of those experts quoted in good sources like independent newspapers, other journals, or magazines talking about Double Helix. If such references don't exist than unfortunately Double Helix doesn't pass the standard for notability at this point. Please note, I'm not saying definitively that is the case, I haven't researched it enough to say either way but I am saying that I don't think you've made a case that the editor is not following Wikipedia guidelines in their assessment and feedback. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mad Scientist. One of the External Links is to The WAC Clearinghouse referenced in the article, which does indeed meet the standard for Notability, according to the editor and the standards as laid out by Wikipedia for Academic Journals. The footnotes are to a Statement released by INWAC endorsing the journal. This was the second authority, which the editor asked me to source in order to establish notability in order for the article to be approved. According to Wikipedia's standards for notability for academic journals, the article needs to satisfy only 1 of the 3 criteria in order to meet the standard. According to the Editor, a second authority that is independent and reliable needs to be sourced. He agreed that INWAC is, as it is both independent of the other source, The WAC Clearinghouse, as well as the journal, and is the leading authority in the field. What's puzzling is that this second reference offers more of a statement about the journal than the first reference, and it's hard to see how it possibly confers less notability than the first reference. The history of this discussion, which I'm briefly recounting here and above, can also be found at the Editor's Talk page. Thanks again for taking an interest, Mad Scientist.Blitzenrupff (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I know it can be intimidating to new editors there is so much stuff to learn. That is why I always advise new editors to get experience editing existing articles first before they try to create a new page. Although no on ever seems to follow that suggestion ;-) FYI an external link doesn't count as a reference. A reference needs to be an inline citation. The idea is that the reference comes after the fact(s) it supports. External links are for additional information that is relevant but not used as a reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (yet again), Mad Scientist. Although this wasn't an issue for the editor, the method of documentation for the first source could easily be modified. I think he and I are at an impasse. He still hasn't responded to my questions about how exactly the second reference fails to satisfy criteria 1 for establishing notability for academic journals. So, since he appears to be the sole gatekeeper for the article, unfortunately, I think that's it.Blitzenrupff (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blitzenrupff: There is no concept of 'sole gatekeeper' here. When you submit an article for review it is like playing spin the bottle. You will always get a kiss, but you may find it not to your taste.

I see it is not currently submitted for review. If you are confident that all the work that can be done has ben done, resubmit it. On the prior reviewer's talk page consider placing a request that other eyes than theirs look at it. Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]